Rand Paul ducks question about minimum wage

Rand Paul's remarkable interview this morning with George Stephanopoulos is getting lots of attention because of his criticism of President Obama for being too tough on British Petroleum.

But there's another, perhaps more telling, nugget that came at the very end: Paul was unwilling to say unequivocally that the Federal government has a proper role in setting the minimum wage. The exchange comes at the 7:45 mark of the interview:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Should the Federal government be able to set a minimum wage?

PAUL: It's not a question of whether they can or canot. I think that's decided. I think the question you have to ask is whether or not when you set the minimum wage it may cause unemployment.

Paul went on to argue that a high minimum wage risks pushing up unemployment among unskilled workers.

Paul was asked a straight Yes or No question: Does the Federal government have a valid role setting minimum wage? He declined to answer.

Later on Stephanopoulos asked Paul if he would repeal the minimum wage. He seemed to say No but basically brushed off the question. And even if he is opposed to repeal, the question of where he stands on repeal -- which is an impossibility -- is separate from whether he embraces the core principles underlying the law.

The pattern is becoming clearer and clearer: Paul simply does not want to answer direct questions about the proper role of the Federal government in regulating the private sector. He visibly bristles when asked to clarify his views on these matters.

Perhaps he knows that his views are too far out there and just doesn't want to lie about them. Or perhaps he thinks it's an unfair imposition for him to endure direct questioning from pointy-headed elite liberal journalists who are obviously doing nothing more than echoing DNC talking points. Whatever the explanation, it offers a telling glimpse into his actual views and character.

Or perhaps he thinks it's an unfair imposition for him to endure direct questioning from pointy-headed elite liberal journalists who are obviously doing nothing more than echoing DNC talking points. BINGO!

Greg: There wil be an endless stream of Paul bobbing and weaving but it's already too late for him. He's down for the count. The only danger is that soon, people will start feeling sorry for him.

"Rand Paul's remarkable interview this morning with George Stephanopoulos is getting lots of attention because of his criticism of President Obama for being too tough on British Petroleum."

As you know, I am obsessed with this story and once again McClatchey reports real news, namely that the 19 times more oil has leaked into the Gulf than BP said.

"The latest glimpse of video footage of the oil spill deep under the Gulf of Mexico indicates that around 95,000 barrels, or 4 million gallons, a day of crude oil may be spewing from the leaking wellhead, 19 times the previous estimate, an engineering professor told Congress Wednesday."

4 million gallons a day for 31 days = 124,000,000 GALLONS OF CRUDE OIL IN THE GULF OF MEXICO! 124 MILLION GALLONS! The Exxon Valdez, the worst oil disaster in American history until now was 11 million gallons AND it happened in an undeveloped area. This is f-ing catastrophic. And Rand Paul and the Republicans think Obama is being mean to BP? Those people are nuts and they most definitely can NOT have the car keys again.

As someone on Morning Joe pointed out this morning (I think it was John Heilemann), the biggest problem Paul has is that what happened on Maddow's show wasn't a gaffe - it's that it exposed his true beliefs. Now he's opened himself up to a continuing littany of questions about how extreme his views are.

My prediction: he's going to go Palin. We won't see him anywhere but on Fox News or on rightwing radio from now until election day.

"In a sometimes testy exchange with reporters in the Capitol on Thursday, the elder Paul said liberals were treating his son unfairly and reporters were hoping to stop his political momentum with "gotcha" questions based on out-of-context remarks.

I happened to watch the Stephanopoulos interview of Paul this morning on GMA and once my jaw dropped a few seconds into the segment, it stayed dropped for the whole thing.

Paul might as well deliver his concession speech today. He is staking out positions which are so extreme that only the most hardcore teabaggers won't be offended by at least SOMETHING that he says. Any minute I expect him to start railing about one world government, black helicopters, and fluoridation in our drinking water. Paul is either seriously nuts or such a paranoid bigot that I find it inconceivable that he will win the general election. I expect ads from the DNC any minute replaying his idiotic statements.

Olbermann referred to him last night as “Rue” Paul. Maybe that’s how the GOP feels about him today; possibly a bit of buyer’s remorse on their part?

With Paul as the new face of the party and the anti-Latino law in Arizona, the GOP seems to be bent on committing Hara-kiri in 2010. How do they think they are going to attract anybody other than bigoted white goobers? The DNC should run national ads with Paul’s statements and link every single GOP candidate to him. Every candidate and official in the GOP needs to be made to either embrace or disown him.

wbgonne, I'm with you on the oil spill. I keep watching it and waiting for them to stop it. They haven't even been able to tell us yet how bad it really is, except that it's much worse than the early calculations or what you linked to today. It's a nightmare and it's going to be one for a long time. Trying to minimize it will not settle well with the people in the Gulf States.

Sue thanks for the info on Rand's MTP appearance. As much as I do not respect Gregory as an interviewer this is a bit like having a slow hanging curve ball to slam out of the park. If Gregory can't nail this one then he should be fired!!!!

I get all the hubub about Paul's comments on TRMS and while I don't believe him to personally be a racist he obviously doesn't get it as far as what kind of society the majority of Americans want.

Still I hope Gregory presses Paul hard on his idea for Medicare...wipe it out and give the seniors $2,000 for their health care...that is so ludicrous as to be unbelievable. A 72 year old would faces premiums WAY over $10,000 annually with deductibles of $4,000 across the board. I base this on my own personal experience. I'm already paying that with NO PREEXISTING CONDITIONS, and I'm only 62 with no history of illness. I can only imagine what the actuarial tables look like for someone ten years my senior!!!
Let's see how Kentucky's seniors feel about taking back their government. Are they willing to give up their Social Security and Medicare?

In addition Gregory needs to pin Paul down about Social Security. Does he think it's a good idea or is than another area where the government should stay out of private business. How about zoning and code laws.
Should a mine operator be able to extract coal however he wishes without safety regs or EPA regs to deal with since it's the mineowner's private property?

The most cogent point from the pundits so far is the one pointed out by S's Cat from
John Heileman who correctly observed Paul's appearance on TRMS wasn't a gaffe or a gotcha interview..it was simply Paul explaining his core beliefs. Another item Gregory should explore...does Ron Paul think any journalist who simply tries to explore Paul's core beliefs about the role of government is some lefty liberal from the as he called it "looney bin of the left" or is the public entitled to know Paul's fundemental beliefs regarding the role of government.

"The pattern is becoming clearer and clearer: Paul simply does not want to answer direct questions about the proper role of the Federal government in regulating the private sector. He visibly bristles when asked to clarify his views on these matters."

This is indeed the question that must be asked of a major candidate when that candidate is known to hold a libertarian political philosophy. The proper role of the federal government is a legitimate matter of debate, but while there is a spectrum of views on that topic the libertarian views are way out on one end of that spectrum.

@Greg: "Paul simply does not want to answer direct questions about the proper role of the Federal government in regulating the private sector. He visibly bristles when asked to clarify his views on these matters."

I expect the same sort of "wonder" when/if Kagan uses the old "it's settled law" answer...

Re the oil spill...does anybody besides perhaps the moron of the blog bilgey..believe BP underestimated the amount of oil flowing into the Gulf?

Or do we have a consensus opinion that BP absolutely, unequivocally lied about the facts and have done everything in their power to COVER THIS UP?

Then..love Obama or not...one has to question WHY the Administration has let BP get away with this ruse for a month now.
Was it because they were afraid of harsh criticism for the corporatists like Rand Paul.

There was a demonstration yesterday in St. Petersburg Florida at one of our waterfront parks...the marchers were carrying signs that said "Obama's Crude Awakening"

Let's hope it's his awakening at what the corporatists are doing to our nation.
ENOUGH ALREADY!!!! Take control and TELL BP WHAT TO DO..NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Furthermore, as someone known to hold to a political philosophy inimically hostile to such decisions his polticial philosophy is an extremely relevant subject for further questioning for this candidate.

It is ridiculous to assume that he should not have to ask such questions when he is already on record as holding views most Americans would regard as unacceptably extreme.

(If you think it is not true that Americans view his philosophy as unacceptably extreme, consider how dependably badly Libertarian candidates do when they run for office.)

"But on Thursday evening, the ophthalmologist from Bowling Green said there was one thing he would not cut: Medicare physician payments.

In fact, Paul — who says 50% of his patients are on Medicare — wants to end cuts to physician payments under a program now in place called the sustained growth rate, or SGR. “Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living,” he told a gathering of neighbors in the back yard of Chris and Linda Wakild, just behind the 10th hole of a golf course."

Greg,
While there was certainly no shortage of paranoid and delusional assertions by Paul throughout the GMA interview, the one that I found the most absurd was his statement:

"Where do your talking points come from? The Democratic National Committee, they also come from Rachel Maddow and MSNBC."

That Paul would contend that Rachel Maddow runs MS-NBC is a BIG stretch, but to claim that she gives ABC and Stephanopolous their marching orders beyond insane. Someone needs to pointedly ask Paul how this vast liberal media conspiracy works and if he has any evidence, other than his own discomfiture, to back up this ridiculous claim.

"I expect the same sort of "wonder" when/if Kagan uses the old "it's settled law" answer..."

I expected more out of you SBJ...really...think about what Rand Paul is advocating.

I respect an honest debate about libertarianism but Paul knows the American public does not REALLY want what he espouses and so he is TRULY trying to dance around the subject of his core beliefs. If you can't see that SBJ then you are not as bright as I thought...but honestly I respect your intellect and so I can only conclude you are being INCREDIBLY disingenuous!!!

@suekzoo1: I remember now hearing about his booking on MTP yesterday. I think it would be suicide for him to bow out now. I stand by my prediction going forward: based on yesterday and the GMA interview this morning, I will be very surprised to see him anywhere other than friendly territory until election day.

Sue...thanks for the link...I have heard that about Paul in terms of wanting increased reimbursement. And that is a telling point about his hypocrisy. But he has also said he wants to offer Seniors a $2,000 tax credit for Medicare and do away with it altogether.

Paul may be a libertarian but he does have that republican cheney idea...if it means money for me and haliburton government good...if it means I pay taxes government bad!!!

Lots of liberals are honest enough to admit today that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and lacks a constitutional basis. But many of those same liberals are only to happy to say that the question is nonetheless "settled," and we can't go back.

Lots of politicians and judicial nominees answer the abortion question exactly that way -- as a practical matter it is settled.

Good grief, in the Casey plurality decision, that was the essence of the "reasoning" -- Roe might have been (wink, wink, "was") wrong, but we can't go back and change it now.

So if Paul gave a theoretical answer -- no, of course the federal government has no constitutional authority to set wages -- you liberals would go ape, and if he gives the practical answer -- the question has been settled by history -- you go ape.

I believe that Paul is being very honest about his true beliefs. If he wasn't then Greg would not be using the word "remarkable" quite so much! I find his honestly both courageous and refreshing, whether or not I agree. I hope that he continues - much like Cristy in NJ - to push back against the pundits and establishment and express widely held populist beliefs and anger.

I think y'all make the same mistake with the AZ immigration law. You are simply out of touch with how the average person views these things. Calderon criticizes one of our states (and all of the people - a majority! - who support the proposition) and the Dems give him a standing ovation? You think that's going to play well nationwide?

I think the libs are really overplaying their hand on this one - thinking that libertarian views are far out of the mainstream. Paul may quite soon become a victimized folk hero.

wbgonne I don't believe any of the demonstrators "blame" Obama for the spill.

They are largely an educated and informed bunch, most of whom are already environmentalists. They understand that the core of the problem began with two oil men in the W.H. and Dick Cheney's SECRET energy meeting with oil execs.

What they are disturbed about...and quite frankly what disturbs me..is that Obama's intentions might be good...his initial desire for consensus might sound great...but he is letting the corporatists still have WAY too much power.

There were only about a hundred marchers but IMHO this is only the beginning. As you have correctly pointed out in several threads over the past few days as the pictures and the REALITY of the damage sinks (no pun intended) into the consciousness of the American public these demonstrations will continue to grow!

A couple of months ago E.J. Dionne wrote a great piece pointing out the shared flaw of Obama and Clinton. They both try to hard for diplomacy and compromise. In Dionne's words Obama wants to get the lions and the sheep to lie down together...meanwhile the freaking lions (the powerful corporate interests) are eating the sheep. (the rest of us)

There you are, QB. Since you are on patrol today let me ask you this: Was SCOTUS correct when it held earlier this week that the Fed Govt has the Constitutional power, under the Necessary and Proper Clause, to hold sexually dangerous people indefinitely?

"I think y'all make the same mistake with the AZ immigration law. You are simply out of touch with how the average person views these things. Calderon criticizes one of our states (and all of the people - a majority! - who support the proposition) and the Dems give him a standing ovation? You think that's going to play well nationwide?"

Also, to all of you "hoping" for David Gregory to press Dr. Paul on any issue...just stop. Gregory is as useless an interviewer as burnt toast. I stumble onto the set drunk and give a more insightful interview than he could.

What they SHOULD do for Meet the Press this weekend for Rand's visit...is have Gregory be "sick" and let Maddow guest host.

Agreed re: Obama. His greatest failing to date has been an unwillingness to come down hard on Big Money and tap into the country's populist anger. I think Obama is different from Clinton and the times are different, too. But I agree that the Democratic Party has internalized all the legitimate ideas the Conservative movement had to offer. That's why the GOP ends up with Teabaggers and Rand (No Government is Good Government) Paul. I really hope a more assertive Obama emerges over time. The guy has had quite a bit to deal with from Day One so it may take some time (second term?) before he gets out of crisis mode and we see what he can really do.

quarterbrain,
Did you even see the GMA interview? Paul assiduously avoided answering anything. Furthermore, he claimed that by quoting a letter verbatim, WRITTEN BY PAUL, Stephanopolous was getting his "talking points" from "[t]he Democratic National Committee, they also come from Rachel Maddow and MSNBC."

You think that is a reasonable claim? How is direct questioning concerning his published opinions playing "gotcha" journalism? Oh, I forgot. According to your keen legal mind, verbatim quotes constitute libel.

If you think that Paul has sounded reasonable in the last couple of days then you indeed are an even bigger imbecile than I thought. Paul is a goober and if you are defending him, you are as well.

Or perhaps he thinks it's an unfair imposition for him to endure direct questioning from pointy-headed elite liberal journalists who are obviously doing nothing more than echoing DNC talking points. BINGO!

Posted by: obrier2
________________________
that was sarcasm. the questions are perfectly legitimate given what he has already publicly said about lunch counters having the right to refuse blacks, and folks in wheel chairs sticking to the ground floor to save their employers the cost of elevators.

and no, "it's settled" isn't an answer. the issue is whether he thinks it was settled correctly, which is directly relevant to how he would act as a legislator. Of course that's setting aside that he appears not to be willing to legislate according to what he actually believes anyway, so maybe it doesn't really matter what he thinks. that's sarcasm too.

SBJ we'll simply have to disagree. I don't compare Paul to Arizona laws, or Christy in N.J. or any other political figure for that matter. He is the FIRST libertarian to get this far. I AGREE with you 100% that WHEN he is honest about his views it is refreshing and I respect his honesty. He realizes he has no real chance if he is truly honest!!! I saw the Rachel Maddow show and you could tell he didn't want to tell the truth, yet in fairness he also didn't want to lie. If you've seen the tape of his interview with the Louisville Courier Editorial board meeting it was classic Rand Paul. He said overall he supported the Civil Rights act...when pressed with the simple question of ...but? He smiled and said ahhh but...and then went onto say private businesses can discriminate. Do you really believe the MAJORITY of Americans support this view SBJ? I concede a significant minority certainly do..perhaps a number that matches the number of tea partiers.

And so SBJ let me tell you where I agree with Rand Paul and his father. They wish to end the M.I.C. and stop the U.S. from being the policeman of the World. They are for an immediate withdrawal of troops from around the world...not just Afghanistan and Iraq..but Korea, Germany, Japan etc. Hooray for the Paul family I couldn't agree more. Let's have that debate.

They are also for dismantling Gov't agencies like the EPA, OSHA, SEC etc. In reality if you are for ending these regulators then you must accept what will happen...polluted air...polluted gulf of Mexico (Bush/Cheney have already wrecked MMS) poisonous pacifiers like the ones we got from China (they don't have no stinking government oversight there) and of course the number of mining deaths in West Va would increase dramatically.

Basically in the libertarian world view...private property trumps human values...private personal accumulation of wealth trumps any good for society.

And so I conclude SBJ with whatever happened to the saying uttered so eloquently by Patrick Henry...

Don't blame us because he's too chickensh*t to answer the question honestly.

I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed in the fellow. I've always thought he was a bit of a nutjob but at least he was true to himself. Come to find out, though, he apparently doesn't even have the courage of his own convictions. Sad, really. Turns out the poster boy for teabaggers is just another typical politician.

The media is simply asking loaded questions because they know the answer they'll get will appeal to people's feelings.

For example, what kind of a jerk could Rand be if he's against a minimum wage?!

But those of us that THINK instead of simply FEEL can answer this right away. In a market economy people are hired to make a profit. The salary that they can command is based on how much money they make for their company. When you raise the minimum wage above the point that their labor is profitable, employers will simply not hire these people. This is the reason that, for example, you see very few full service gas stations anymore.

In reality, setting a minimum wage is outlawing employment for those that need it most. It's a terribly immoral and oppressive thing to do. But the media knows how difficult it is to get people thinking this much in whatever short amount of time they decide to give Rand to answer.

Let’s just say Rand Paul is open to voting and supporting the desires of his constituents, and not arbitrarily voting on issues. By the way, Stephanopoulos asked, “Should the Federal government be able to set a minimum wage?” and not, “Does the Federal government have a valid role setting minimum wage?”

Both Rand and his father are followers of the Austrian School of Economics. One of the points they make is that minimum wage increases have a direct cause and effect relationship with increased unemployment. However, since our education system has done such a good job indoctrinating people into not understanding cause and effect relationships, much less micro or macro economics, flat out declaration of a principal has to wait for re-education to be effective.

BBQ Chicken...As I've stated many times on this blog I think Gregory is the worst. And while I truly admire Rachel Maddow I have a different suggestion.

If you ever watch Matt Lauer...or Meredith Vierra for that matter...I give a slight edge to Matt but Meredith is also highly qualified...they both do excellent interviews during that 7-7:30 segment of serious stuff before they are handed the crap of dealing with the latest contestant kicked off the Island or Dancing with the Stars.

I think Lauer is a terrific interviewer who does not come across as partisan (something Rachel admittedly does...although partisan is not the same as unfair..Faux has given partisan journalism a horrible name because of their propaganda and multiple manifest lies). I'm not sure he would have considered it accepting...and I am sure the village would have revolted...but I would have preferred Lauer..2nd choice Vierra...far more than Gregory to host MTP.
Matt and Meredith are heads and shoulder above NBC's normal "political reporters" Todd, Mitchell etc...although I do have a certain amount of respect for Savannah Guthrie...just need to see more of her work to form a solid opinion.

"Rand Paul...had been welcome on Maddow's show, where they'd happily light into mainstream Republicans. Before the younger Paul became a Senate nominee, he was an emissary for a brand of Republican politics less threatening than the Dick Cheney kind -- anti-Fed, anti-war, pro-drug legalization. (Paul is not personally pro-drug legalization, but many of his supporters are.) After he won the nomination, it was open season on his more extreme politics.

"...it was fun to indulge the libertarians for a while, but the time had come for good liberals to take them seriously.

"I think Rand Paul has been whipsawed by the literally overnight shift in his coverage -- from "check out this exciting insurgent candidate" to "will this insurgent candidate destroy the Republic?" It's not a shift I plan to undergo."

No, posting "quotations" that can found to have been fabricated with three minutes of internet verification is libelous, and that is what you did.

As for the rest of your rant, Greg says the man refused to answer a specific question (which Greg himself then promptly misstated, btw). His answer was perfectly fine. The SCt has said the federal government has a vast range of powers that would leave a layman with a copy of the constitution scratching his head. A politician's opinion about those decisions is trivial pursuit and gotcha journalism, no more.

It gets funnier: From Gawker: "Following his anti-civil rights and pro-BP gaffes, people are now turning to Kentucky Republican senate candidate Rand Paul's historical nuttiness. Here, via TPM, he talks about a giant conspiracy to found the 'Amero' — the American version of the Euro." I'm expecting Rand Paul to don his tinfoil hat are start ranting about fluoridation of the drinking water, the CIA communicating through his fillings, and alien probes.

bonncaruso BINGO! But libertarians never get very far in actual elections.

SBJ "he was an emissary for a brand of Republican politics less threatening than the Dick Cheney kind --"

Absolutely...he's not for torture...he's not for secret meetings that enrich Cheney and Halilburton...he's not for starting a war in a sovereign nation under false pretenses..which coincidentally again resulted in Cheney and Halliburton making billions of dollars at taxpayer expense.
Let's be honest. DICK Cheney may be one of the most despicable human beings to EVER serve in public office in the history of our country. ANYBODY would be a welcome change from that scumbag.

Be clear here SBJ...Rachel Maddow treated Paul with respect...if she was somewhat amazed at his candor...NOBODY is insulting Rand Paul personally...last night the President/CEO of the NAACP went out of his way to say that he didn't feel Rand Paul was personally a racist and didn't feel it would be appropriate for ANYBODY to suggest that Paul was a racist.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT RAND PAUL PERSONALLY!!!!
It is about his policies. When journalists wish to explore those policies it is beyond disingenuous and anti intellectual to dismiss those explorations as some kind of personal animus against Rand Paul personally.

Think about it SBJ. It's good for all of us. This entire debate about HOW MUCH GOVERNMENT is good has been hijacked by the R's constant demagoguery. Now Rand Paul has simply and to his credit, honestly brought the debate into the light of day where Americans can actually consider how much government is appropriate without being misdirected by republican lies about socialism/death panels a health insurance reform of PRIVATE companies being passed off as a government takeover.

I support Rand Paul's staring an HONEST debate. I do not agree with many of his positions but I believe him to be sincere in his beliefs...THE ONLY FREAKING REPUBLICAN who is in 2010!!!

America is being Balkanized by the Global Elites and can't see the forest for the trees!
Don't let these tyrants tell you what to think for their benefit of being able to put people in power to dictate to you what you can and cannot have!

I find it not surprisingly ironic that the Lame Stream Media ( Used to be Main Stream Media ) that they would be out to persecute Rand Paul however, it won't work because we know the Lame Stream Media is in bed with the Elitist Globalists, of course the Elites own most of the media!

Everybody knows, if you want news that will tell you what the establishment allows you to hear, you listen to, watch, or read Lame Stream Media news!

The only place citizens are able to hear accurate news anymore is from the Independent Media - why do you think the Globalists' want to shut down the Internet and free speech?

Yes, the Lame Stream Media jumping in to Grill the guts out of Rand Paul, just goes to prove what a good credible leader he will be!
The establishment and the Elite Globalists are afraid of Rand Paul and of his agenda to help get our country back !

Folks, just know that these guys will be out to kill Rand Paul's credibility with the public, to help them ( the Globalists ) have less resistance to their highly desired, "One World Dictatoral Government", agenda!

Anything the citizens of America want will be considered extremism, by these infiltrated establishment tyrants that have hi-jacked the once free Republic of America!

Folks step up and support what the citizens of Kentucky have openly spoken their approval for whom, they want to Govern them, so that other states have the right to do the same with the same quality candidates! Through the following months they will be trying to get him to say things that they can hang him by his tongue with no matter how slight or with unintentional harm!

To me, the following, is absolutely the smoking gun of what is going on behind our backs and yet at the same time, right in front of us!

If you can speak Global Elite Speak you will understand exactly what Zbigniew Brezinski says on this you tube clip of him speaking at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting in Montreal, Canada!

Re:May 18, 2010
Zbigniew Brzezinski giving the CFR branch in Montreal a presentation discussing world government and his fears of the mass global awakening that has taken place.

quarterbrain,
This discussion is about the quote which was incontrovertibly taken verbatim from Paul's letter. You are STILL fuming because I insulted the bloated drug addled pedophile? But, since you brought the subject up, please cite exactly which of my Limbaugh quotes was fabricated. You have made this claim before, but have never cited which quote or quotes was inaccurate. Please be specific. Come on, use those sock puppet lawyerly talents and dazzle us with that acumen for evidentiary standards for which you are legendary in the vaporous courts of your tiny little mind.

Again, by engaging in apologia for both Limbaugh and Paul you expose your imbecility.

I've seen some comments about BP on here. It's mostly the same thing I always see...people feeling instead of sitting back and using their heads.

What the media (and Rand Paul) tend to leave out of the discussion is that the moral hazard was created by the government.

The government imposed a $75 million cap on liability for damages caused by oil spills! This is an absurdly small amount of money for a company of the size of BP. The effect, of course, is that fear is effectively completely removed from the equation when oil companies decide how to run these rigs.

Why would an oil company be careful if they know the taxpayers are going to pay for a spill?! If they pay extra money putting in appropriate safeguards their competitors will run them right over. A spill was pretty much inevitable once this degree of moral hazard was introduced by Congress.

Blaming BP for the spill is akin to putting a can of soda in the freezer and getting mad at the can if it explodes.

As for identifying the fakes for you, no. We've been over that. You posted some left-wing blog's list of supposed outrageous Limbaugh statements. A few moments research would have shown you -- as I previously proved on this very blog -- that there were patent fabrications in the list (not to mention distortions and statements taken completely out of context).

You can do the research yourself. After all, you asserted at the time that every supposed quotation could easily be verified. So have fun with your research.

schrodingerscat posted May 21,2010 2:27 PM
"...My prediction: he's going to go Palin. We won't see him anywhere but on Fox News or on right-wing radio from now until election day."

I disagree about Fox programs. Rand Paul may be on Hannity, Beck and Palin's shows but the others are mainstream corporatist republican programs and will avoid Paul as much as possible fearing he will drag other republican candidates into the libertarian abyss.
Fox will play both sides of the Rand Paul card, good guy-bad guy.

"JUST LIKE IT! If the soda can is a multinational fortune 500 company run by greedy pigs who shake the can so it explodes and then blame it on everyone else."

You didn't even try to understand what I was saying, did you.

Is it the fault of the can (the industry playing by the rules the government set) or the fault of the person who put the can in the freezer (the government that told the industry that the public would pay for substantially all the losses if a spill occurs)?

Paul's biggest problem with Kentucky voters may very well end up being gun rights. People focused (correctly) on his civil rights statements on Maddow's program, but in the process overlooked the comparison he made to gun rights on that same program and the huge inconsistency with libertarian (and conservative) views on gun rights.

I write about it at the site below. Contrasting his comments on Maddow's program with Paul's own comments on his website makes for an interesting read and a big future problem for Paul.

If I drive carelessly, talking or texting and end up killing someone with my car, should I decry the "blame game"? Ya think that will work for me? If it's good enough for BP, then it should be good enough for me, right Rand?

What is most frightening for us as a country is that the tea party he boasts about are adopting this same sick libertarian mentality.

The party of the so-called patriots are actually the anti-american party. And they can be talked into believing anyone -- even shouting their praises and voting for them no matter how detrimental it may be to their own well-being.

@qb:A politician's opinion about those decisions is trivial pursuit and gotcha journalism, no more.

Except that senators advise and consent on federal judges. Someone with Paul's beliefs would be the next bunning refusing unanimous consent of judges he thinks don't toe his version of constitutional purity.

Senators get to propose laws and amendments that can either expand or contract the role of govt based on their views. A full vetting of those views is a key part of the information voters should have.

What does paul want to do with SEC. FDA, USDA, EPA, child labor, worker safety, etc. These are not academic questions. These issues come up everyday in congress.

You first mischaracterize what Paul said. He didn't make the argument you suggest there; he said that thes are issues that to be thought through. Thoughtful people do that.

When you say he doesn't understand the legal question, you could be right, but you are quite guilty of ignorance or failure to grapple with complexity yourself.

And when you say the Commerce power to regulate discrimination is "indisputable," well, you really give up your credibility.

Anyone who has been to law school or who has thoughtfully looked at the issue knows it is quite disputable. Liberals just don't like to acknowledge its controversiality, because they can't imagine a world in which the Constitution is not merely their policy wish list.

And if you've been to law school, you know that the kind of question Paul raised is precisely what professors and students debate there.

Conventional liberal thinking and practice are that legislators do not and need not consider the constitutionality of their acts. They leave it to courts and do whatever they think they can get away with.

On the question of judicial nominees, liberal democrat practice -- see Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer -- is not to answer any specific questions. It's ironic that you would suggest a prospective senator's views must be explored in detail when the views of judge's Obama will nominate will not be.

As a practical matter, you are trying to manufacture an issue where there isn't one. Do you seriously think that if Paul were elected he would abolish the agencies you list?

That would be quite a feat for one senator. He would have to operate in the context of the same current reality as everyone else. Your argument is just tub-thumping.

For someone who claims to be so concerned about government transparency, Rand Paul sure seems hesitant all of a sudden to tell us what he's thinking. He's already changed his mind on fair housing and the legitimacy of private discrimination in the last 24 hours. I'm looking forward to watching him either completely clam up, or else pretend to have completely different values from what he really believes for the rest of the election season.

He spent the entire primary season dishing heat about how Washington was a bunch of slippery characters who are only concerned about getting elected and whose values don't represent ordinary Americans. Nice thing is, it's taken him less than half a week to become exactly the caricature he's been describing. Too bad his skin is too thin to have the truth pointed out to him.

Paul sees what ignorant dems don't, Obama is only being hard on BP to cover up his own mishandling of the Oil spill. While the spill was caused by BP's, it's America's problem and Obama should have had governmental people in the gulf handling this problem one month ago when it happened. But instead, he was playing around with President Calderone criticizing Arizona and supporting a lack of borders between Mexico and the US.

National incidents and illegal immigration happen to be two of the few areas that the federal government should be stepping in and stepping up to the plate.

Don't you people see, especially you journalist, that the holocaust as well as slavery either came out of the government or were supported and encouraged by the government, but all y'all care about is getting a free doctor's visit and a handout or assuaging your own guilt of being wealthy by wanting the government to give handouts so you don't have to.

If we're lucky, Rand Paul and more like him will fill up Washington. If we're unlucky and the dems get what they want, Obama will send us the way of Greece and we'll become no batter off than Cuba.

quarterbrain,
Nope, the list of Limbaugh quotes was wholly my own. Feel free to prove otherwise. I note that you have not cited any quotes as false because you cannot.

Note, I did not bring up the Limbaugh issue, you did. I merely brought up the fact that you don't know diddly about the law. Your pretend law school courses didn't actually impart any knowledge to you. You accused me of libel and could not cite any evidence to back it up. Again, with the pathetic "I'm a lawyer" schtick. Save it. Nobody believes it.

I've done the research and stand by it. You can't disprove anything so you fall back on your standard "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" defense. Nobody cares.

That Rand Paul is either Republican or Libertarian is an old Libertarian Party effort called a "stealth candidate" up through the 1990s. Now they call them "fusion candidates".

While there is no official, written program this is commonly done by many LP affiliates. A LP candidate backed by the LP Central Committee runs as an independent or as another party candidate. Once they get in office they usually wait six months or so and then announce they "found" the LP and were switching parties.

Rand Paul is like Ron Paul, neither one is any more a Republican than Hilary Clinton.

quarterbrain,
Cite one single fabricated quote or stand exposed as the sniveling little liar that you are.

I can provide video and/or audio links to many, if not most of the quotes.

If you were a lawyer, you would understand the need for actual evidence and not rely on mere bluster. You don't cite evidence because there is none. When you NEVER cite evidence, you merely confirm that you are a fraud. We have only your "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" as "proof." Again, outside of the sock puppet courts in which you practice cartoon law, that is an evidentiary standard that does not pass muster.

You talk a big game, but never seem to be able to substantiate your boasts. Put up, or S*** T** F*** U*.

Let's see if this goof Sargent sings the same tune when Elena Kagan starts dodging questions left and right during the confirmation hearings. I wonder if he will write "Perhaps she knows that her views are too far out there and just doesn't want to lie about them." I don't think we will see him write that. Typical hypocritical liberal journalist practicing advocacy journalism.

The war criminal wannabe burbled about Sarah Palin last autumn. I've checked and so far haven't found a way to search archives back that far. I will be happy to search those archives once I learn how to access them.

Journalist: Steve Watson
A fired up Paul hit out further at the establishment left’s political smear campaign on Good Morning America today:

“If you want to bring up 40-year-old legislation, why don’t you bring me on with Sen. [Robert] Byrd, and we’ll talk about how he filibustered the Civil Rights Act,” Paul said of the 92-year-old West Virginia Democrat. “Make him, call him to task for something he actually did as opposed to calling me to task for something they insinuated that I might believe that’s not true.”

“What is going on here is an attempt to vilify us for partisan reasons. Where do your talking points come from? The Democratic National Committee, they also come from Rachel Maddow and MSNBC.” he added.

You have done nothing but post conclusory statements responding to my post. If you want a discussion, give your reasoning (you will note I gave mine in depth). Without it, your conclusions are useless.

quarterbrain,
Next time I see you post, I'll be glad to post my lengthy rebuttal to your lame challenge. However, I'm not going to do any late night, end of thread, over the transom stuff. I want it to be either a Morning Plum or a Happy Hour Roundup, because I want EVERYBODY to see you squirm.

"I will be happy to search those archives once I learn how to access them."

Just try google. I've searched several times when you've made this silly claim. Nada. Which is shocking since you are so brilliant and reliable and everything.

Like I said, I don't particularly care that you claim I said something favorable about Palin. She is infinitely better than any of the loathesome people you support. I'm more interested in your veracity or lack thereof.

Rand Paul took the answer of 'No' as a given and skipped straight to the explanation of his answer. The minimum wage is a very bad thing the government imposes and it hurts everybody. If tomorrow I were allowed to pay an hourly wage of $6.75, I would hire two people straight off and they would be glad to have work! Instead as it is there are several unskilled people in my area that don't have work, have not had work for a long time, and regularly steal books from the local Wal-Mart to trade in at used bookstores. This is very bad for businesses, and it is corroding their morals as they see it less and less as something wrong, and more and more like something necessary. If the government let us all interact with each other in an unforced manner and through mutual agreements, these bad things would not happen. People would have work, and though the more timid may be swayed into agreeing to work for less pay by a more adept employer, this is a necessary occurence for people to learn the skills of fortitude and healthy self-interest. Going towards a system where we gain the ability to work with each other, with agreements based on what is best for the parties involved, would be a very good improvement in our society.

Ask him whether he would have voted to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery.

This is relevant because as a libertarian, Paul prizes property rights above and beyond all other human rights. Indeed, property is the alpha and omega of libertarianism.

And freeing the slaves violated slave-holders' property rights.

As with the minimum wage, there is no chance (well, we hope!) that we will return to chattel slavery in the United States. But it is relevant to making a determination of how "out there" Rand Paul really is.

You're quite right that whether a person would support the 13th Amendment is the proper (read: honest) way of determining whether they actually are the horrible things the MSM is suggesting they are.

I'm quite certain Rand (like every other libertarian I have ever known) supports the 13th Amendment. Most of us libertarians think the 13th amendment was redundant and therefore unnecessary because slavery was obviously unconstitutional without it. The reason of course is that the Constitution refers to "persons" and "citizens", which the color of one's skin has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with.

I'm honestly not sure what you think you explained. That the Commerce Clause quite clearly covers the Civil Rights Act is totally and completely beyond dispute. It just is. You may not like the Court's interpretation, but it is well-established law. That's in part why Paul's comments caught people so completely off guard. His views are totally outside of the mainstream.

Paul most certainly did make the argument about guns that I say he made. It's there in black and white.

So, as I said, you have given me your conclusions but nothing more to go with. If, as you say, this isn't the forum for an in depth discussion, feel free to contact me via email (contact page is on my site). I'm guessing you won't. It looks like you aren't interested in much more than firing rude shots at other commenters, based on the number of people you seem to have a problem with here.

1. I didn't say I explained. I said I'll just stand by my comments, which I'm satsified are clear enough if anyone wants to read your blog post. I pointed out, for example, that you mischaracterized Paul's comment, which is obvious to anyone who honestly reads your post. I'm amazed that you seriously think someone commenting here should respond to you blog post at comparable length.

2. "That the Commerce Clause quite clearly covers the Civil Rights Act is totally and completely beyond dispute. It just is. You may not like the Court's interpretation, but it is well-established law."

You would fail a constitutional law exam with this sort of conclusory argument. To say the Supreme Court has ruled X is not to say X is "totally and completely beyond dispute." It means it was disputed and still can be disputed. If it were beyond dispute, it would not be a question raised in constitutional law case books and routinely debated in law school classes. Or think of it this waY: Imagine showing ten layman the Commerce Clause and the various provisions of the Civil Rights Act or Fair Housing Act, and asking them if the Commerce power applies. Imagine asking them to explain how all the provisions regulate commerce among the states. Self evident and indisputable? Not hardly.

I didn't give my opinion about the Court's Commerce reasoning and the Civil Rights Act. I only said you lost credibility by asserting that it is beyond dispute, which you did and have now reinforced.

3. It's interesting that you resort to a personal attack in the form of accusing me of rudeness to other commenters. Don't presume to lecture me about rudeness. You are new here and know little of which you speak. Talk to me after you've lectured the brigade of rude and intolerant leftists like Gasman and rukidding.

I have to admit being puzzled by your attitude. You read my blog post- thank you for taking the time to do that. Then you responded (sort of) to my post, then you suggest you aren't interested in discussing its contents in this forum. If you aren't, to what are you responding and why?

As for your comments on the Commerce Clause, you are asking the wrong question. I am not interested in what 10 laypersons would think about the Commerce Clause and its application to the Civil Rights Act. I am interested in what 9 judges have already said (and reinforced through multiple rulings) on the subject. Yes, it is beyond dispute the Civil Rights Act was within Congress' powers to enact under the Commerce Clause as a matter of law. In fact, the Court is quite clearly moving towards even broader interpretation of the Commerce Clause (see Raich and Comstock for examples). You can keep arguing that a law school class somewhere or 10 laypersons may reach a different conclusion, but so what? What percent odds to you give of the Civil Rights Act being found unconstitutional as beyond Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause? Let me answer for you: 0%.

Btw, your dismissal of how ordinary people would likely read the simple language of the Commerce Clause is a telling indicator both of how off the mark and tendentious your assertion is.

Plenty of liberals and others who support the Civil Rights Act nevertheless admit that the Court stretched the Commerce Clause to uphold it. It makes you, not Rand Paul, the narrow-minded ideologue to pretend that your view is indisputable.

The Constitution doesn't concern itself with what the layperson thinks the Commerce Clause means. That's the judiciary's role (which is also indisputable, even though the Court itself established judicial review and many laypersons may disagree with the Court's holding in Marbury v Madison).

Take your argument about lay person interpretation into a court to challenge the Civil Rights Act. Seriously- what is the likelihood you win? Give me your estimate. I already gave you mine- 0%.

Whether a Court "stretched" the Commerce Clause to make its determination with respect to the Civil Rights Act or not, the Court's holding is settled law, has been supported by dozens of similar cases, and, as I noted, the trend is towards an even more expansive reading of the Commerce Clause (again, see Raich and Comstock). It's not going anywhere anytime soon.